Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify use case of operator-sdk run bundle(-upgrade) in documentation #6610

Open
everettraven opened this issue Oct 19, 2023 · 3 comments
Open
Assignees
Labels
good first issue Denotes an issue ready for a new contributor, according to the "help wanted" guidelines. kind/documentation Categorizes issue or PR as related to documentation. lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed.
Milestone

Comments

@everettraven
Copy link
Contributor

Recently, in various communication channels, there have been questions around using the operator-sdk run bundle(-upgrade) command for non-testing purposes. I think this has to do with some pretty strong suggestions in our documentation that operator-sdk run bundle(-upgrade) is useful for deploying operators with OLM but lacking the caveat that this if for local dev / testing purposes only and should not be used for deploying operators in production. We do call this out in https://sdk.operatorframework.io/docs/olm-integration/testing-deployment/#caveats but I have a feeling this is being overlooked and should revise our docs to better reflect this caveat everywhere operator-sdk run bundle(-upgrade) is referenced / suggested.

@everettraven everettraven added kind/documentation Categorizes issue or PR as related to documentation. good first issue Denotes an issue ready for a new contributor, according to the "help wanted" guidelines. labels Oct 19, 2023
@michaelryanpeter
Copy link
Contributor

/assign

@varshaprasad96 varshaprasad96 added this to the v1.33.0 milestone Oct 30, 2023
@oceanc80 oceanc80 modified the milestones: v1.33.0, v1.34.0 Dec 18, 2023
@oceanc80 oceanc80 modified the milestones: v1.34.0, v1.35.0 Feb 16, 2024
@openshift-bot
Copy link

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. label May 17, 2024
@openshift-bot
Copy link

Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle rotten
/remove-lifecycle stale

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed. and removed lifecycle/stale Denotes an issue or PR has remained open with no activity and has become stale. labels Jun 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue Denotes an issue ready for a new contributor, according to the "help wanted" guidelines. kind/documentation Categorizes issue or PR as related to documentation. lifecycle/rotten Denotes an issue or PR that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants